Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

[semlogo]

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

[The Nehor]

Science is a fraud created by Satan-worshippers to destroy our faith. They insist that their knowledge allows advances when all real believers know that computers, motors, and such actually operate because little pixies God sends make them work. Only the faithful can see them. I see one writing the words on my computer screen right now....

either that or I'm tired of seeing this topic brought up again and again and answered again and again.

[emeliza]

Many of us do not believe that Genesis is a literal account of how the world was created. However within that each person has their own opinion on how it fits into their religious feelings.

I believe The Nehor was recommending that you do a search for these topics first and then ask questions. However more than likely you will get some answers on this thread about different people's opinions.

[semlogo]

Many of us do not believe that Genesis is a literal account of how the world was created. However within that each person has their own opinion on how it fits into their religious feelings.

I believe The Nehor was recommending that you do a search for these topics first and then ask questions. However more than likely you will get some answers on this thread about different people's opinions.

Sorry, typical noob mistake I guess.

[abqfriend]

I am a Catholic and my Church has no problem with geology, earth history or evolution.

The only requirement-is that such evolutionary processes are seen as God controlled and directed.

God is in the picture and not left out of it.

-so-there is no conflict.

-I do not take all of the Bible-especially some of the Genesis accounts as literal recorords word for word. They are indeed the Word of God-meant to teach a heavenly meaning.

-Carol

[emeliza]

I am a Catholic and my Church has no problem with geology, earth history or evolution.

The only requirement-is that such evolutionary processes are seen as God controlled and directed.

God is in the picture and not left out of it.

-so-there is no conflict.

-I do not take all of the Bible-especially some of the Genesis accounts as literal recorords word for word. They are indeed the Word of God-meant to teach a heavenly meaning.

-Carol

That is almost identical to how the LDS Church views it and how most within the Church view it. Thanks Carol.

[ThePhy]

I am a Catholic and my Church has no problem with geology, earth history or evolution.

The only requirement-is that such evolutionary processes are seen as God controlled and directed.

God is in the picture and not left out of it.

-so-there is no conflict.

-I do not take all of the Bible-especially some of the Genesis accounts as literal recorords word for word. They are indeed the Word of God-meant to teach a heavenly meaning.

-Carol

Do you maintain that the entire human race descended from a unique couple (Adam and Eve) who lived just a few thousand years BC?

[rpn]

Yes I do believe that about Adam and Eve.

[The_Monk]

I suggest http://en.fairmormon.org/Evolution

[ThePhy]

Yes I do believe that about Adam and Eve.

Are your ideas on this shared by most of the LDS community?

What is the view about where and when man originated from in the evolutionary community?

[semlogo]

I suggest http://en.fairmormon.org/Evolution

Thanks

[abqfriend]

I do not know how long ago Adam and Eve were created--as Sacred Scripture does not tell me that. I do not take the Genesis accounts as literal word-for word-but I have no problem believing that they were ultimately created by a loving God.

-Carol

Do you maintain that the entire human race descended from a unique couple (Adam and Eve) who lived just a few thousand years BC?

[Lamanite]

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

If you want a really good read and are sincerely interested in the topic, try "Reflections of a Scientist" Henry Eyring. He's a Mormon Scientist that never really had to make the reconciliation because Science and Religion were always compatible for him. BY held some of the same views.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[The_Monk]

If you want a really good read and are sincerely interested in the topic, try "Reflections of a Scientist" Henry Eyring. He's a Mormon Scientist that never really had to make the reconciliation because Science and Religion were always compatible for him.

And of course, he was President Henry B. Eyring's father. I've always wondered/suspected, given his father and his undergraduate degree in physics, that he has some, ah, interesting views on the topic.

[Bee Eff]

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

I wholeheartedly agree with Brigham Young in this quote:

I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood.... In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp.397, 398)

As to the specifics, it appears that evolution occurred. Until God explains the method of creation, evolution is the safest bet. I would be open to being wrong should God ever state that such is so, but until then I will be fine viewing evolution as the method God used.

I do believe that man was a different case. LDS believe that man is divine progeny. Given this, evolution is a doubtful origin for man. This does not conflict with evolution of other species though.

[Lamanite]

And of course, he was President Henry B. Eyring's father. I've always wondered/suspected, given his father and his undergraduate degree in physics, that he has some, ah, interesting views on the topic.

I think "Hal" (President Eyring) walked away from his home with a great deal of his fathers ideology. He mentions him in talks and books quite frequently. I have been deeply affected by both of these men and owe them a debt of gratitude.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[krose]

Not only am I unable to reconcile evolution (whose evidence I can't deny) with scriptures, I am also unable to reconcile it with the concept of a god who is actively involved in the events of this planet. In my mind the only type of god there is possibly room for is one that set the universe (and perhaps life) in motion and then left it alone to fend for itself. Whether such a being exists, well, perhaps we will know someday.

[semlogo]

I wholeheartedly agree with Brigham Young in this quote:

I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood.... In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp.397, 398)

As to the specifics, it appears that evolution occurred. Until God explains the method of creation, evolution is the safest bet. I would be open to being wrong should God ever state that such is so, but until then I will be fine viewing evolution as the method God used.

I do believe that man was a different case. LDS believe that man is divine progeny. Given this, evolution is a doubtful origin for man. This does not conflict with evolution of other species though.

Why are we different? It's not like we're physically the offspring of God.

[ThePhy]

As to the specifics, it appears that evolution occurred. Until God explains the method of creation, evolution is the safest bet. I would be open to being wrong should God ever state that such is so, but until then I will be fine viewing evolution as the method God used.

I do believe that man was a different case. LDS believe that man is divine progeny. Given this, evolution is a doubtful origin for man. This does not conflict with evolution of other species though.

Then you donâ??t credit evolution for the origin of man for purely religious reasons, and not for scientific reasons. Science considers man to be just another product of evolution.

You have a religious reason for wanting to assign man some privileged and unique status outside the evidence accorded by evolution. This is not much different than an earlier era when it was religious dogma that was brought to bear on Galileoâ??s religiously heretical, but ultimately vindicated ideas.

Man evolved from lower forms.

[annewandering]

i like the pixie idea. pixies are sooo helpful to mankind. what would we do without them?

[Connolly]

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

If you read the creation account in Abraham you will see that it does not say that the gods created the plants and animals, you will see that it says the gods prepared to seas and the earth to bring forth the plants and animals.

D&C 101:32-34. God will reveal it all. IMO, he is doing that right now, piece by piece, and for the most part he left the book wide open for us to read. The wide open book is the geological and fossil record as well as the astronomical record, we can observe the universe as it was at almost any time by just observing objects that are relatively near or very very far away. God isn't going to reveal everything to the prophet, he reveals things to all men, even those who don't recognize the source of their inspiration. If you study the history of science I'm sure you will see the hand of providence in many important discoveries.

[Bee Eff]

Why are we different? It's not like we're physically the offspring of God.

November 1909

The Origin of Man.

By The First Presidency of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity

LDS do believe we are physically the offspring of God.

[Bee Eff]

Then you donâ??t credit evolution for the origin of man for purely religious reasons, and not for scientific reasons. Science considers man to be just another product of evolution.

True.

You have a religious reason for wanting to assign man some privileged and unique status outside the evidence accorded by evolution. This is not much different than an earlier era when it was religious dogma that was brought to bear on Galileoâ??s religiously heretical, but ultimately vindicated ideas.

Yes, I do. The theory of evolution has been shown to be a fact, the evolution of man has not been shown 100% to be true. I can doubt a little. It is possible that apes evolved to a near human physiology and then to discourage our breeding with them they were halted, perhaps even put to extinction. There are number possibilities, and while I am skeptical of both, I will side with religion in that there is no benefit to leaning to either side of the debate and I enjoy my religious delusions, if that is what they are.

Man evolved from lower forms.

Perhaps, but at the moment, such is not necessarily an absolute.

[semlogo]

November 1909The Origin of Man.By The First Presidency of the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of DeityLDS do believe we are physically the offspring of God.

I believe you are mistaken. Even taken literally, our bodies are no more than dust, assembled by Jehovah. It's our spirits that are offspring of Deity.

If you read the creation account in Abraham you will see that it does not say that the gods created the plants and animals, you will see that it says the gods prepared to seas and the earth to bring forth the plants and animals.D&C 101:32-34. God will reveal it all. IMO, he is doing that right now, piece by piece, and for the most part he left the book wide open for us to read. The wide open book is the geological and fossil record as well as the astronomical record, we can observe the universe as it was at almost any time by just observing objects that are relatively near or very very far away. God isn't going to reveal everything to the prophet, he reveals things to all men, even those who don't recognize the source of their inspiration. If you study the history of science I'm sure you will see the hand of providence in many important discoveries.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way.

[BCSpace]

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with?

I can wholeheartedly accept the Adam and Eve story within the bounds of Evolution. It may have been that Adam was the first homo sapiens with a literal spirit child of God within. "Out of the dust of the earth" to me could be metaphorical for the whole Big Bang/Evolutionary process, the "dust" (the elements) having been created in the nuclear furnances of stars over billions of years and molded by evolutionary processes into the plants, animals, and people we see today.

We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives

We don't know that at all. All we know is that there is not currently any evidence that we would typically recognize as such.....

- maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

...however, I do tend to settle on a local flood.